SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP www.SC-Soccer.com: SC Club Comparison

If you gave out a letter grade based on performance on the latest data (supplied to chico for inclusion)

clubs with min 30 games played

Bridge - A
CESA - A
MPSC - B
LCSC - C
CSC - F
CUFC - F

based on distance from the average.

After being away for a while it seems nothing has changed. Chico has way to much time on his hands and is developing stats that mean nothing.

Whenever the leagues in Italy England or anywhere else start using winning% as a marker for how good a team is or even a club then is charts will be meaningful. Until then remember youth soccer is about development.

Gamecock .... Doesn't points determine how good a team is?
See Striker04 data of ranking within the division

For comparison of performance between dissimilar number of datapoints I believe the W% is the correct value.

Otherwise in your logic, CUFC with 43 wins and 23 ties in challenge league will have a grand total of 195 points

Compared to CRSA with only 7 wins for a total 28 points.

Here you ignore the fact that CUFC lost 89 games and CRSA lost 4. Therefore it would be correct to state that for every 10 games played CRSA wins 6 of them and CUFC wins 3. This is all that is being said.

The number of teams participating will have an effect. In the case of CRSA one loss is about 4% drop in ranking in the case of CUFC one loss is only 0.2% drop.

Therefore the data states that there is very little that will change for CUFC (or Bridge or CESA) unless they go in a tear in one direction or the other. Whereas CRSA will have a greater impact to their standing based on every game played.

Thus a comparison can be made.

So Futbol

CRSA is a better club than CUFC? is that what you are saying?

Lets stay impartial. From realistic non- biased view if you picked the best teams in each age group at the highest level. The best teams would come from CESA BRidge and CUFC not CSRA or any other some clubs. That is Im sure what you will find at the state cups. winning % is great for people with lots of time and little real life soccer experience. Go ask college coaches which clubs they will be looking for players from and i imagine it will be the 3 above. I am just eing honest here and do not wish this to denounce smaller clubs- but lets keep it real.

gamecock44: It may well be that I have too much time on my hands -- that's absolutely a debatable point. It would seem to me that whether I have too much time on my hands is not particularly germaine to the discussion...but be that as it may...I understand why you raise it as a point.

In reading your exchanges above it seems to me that you are asserting two things: (1) that winning percentage doesn't matter in youth soccer and is completely disconnected from "development" and (2) that the "best teams" come from Bridge, CESA, and CUFC and not from smaller clubs.

Help me/us out here. How is it that winning is disconnected from development? I mean, we're not talking about academy here, are we?

And what does "best team" mean to you? How can you tell?

>>[gamecock44] Lets stay impartial. From realistic non- biased view if you picked the best teams in each age group at the highest level. The best teams would come from CESA BRidge and CUFC not CSRA or any other some clubs. That is Im sure what you will find at the state cups. winning % is great for people with lots of time and little real life soccer experience. Go ask college coaches which clubs they will be looking for players from and i imagine it will be the 3 above. <<

Actually, the only way I know to stay "impartial" is to look at statistics. You lumped together "the best" teams as coming from three clubs with wildly different results in RIIIPL-East and Challenge league. Why did you do that? How is that being impartial?

Do you really believe that the LCSC U17B team is receiving less college recruiting attention than the CUFC U17B team?

Look...it may be hard to believe...but I want CUFC to succeed. I think CUFC has some good coaches and some good teams (for example, the CUFC U18G Elite team is a good team that is competitive in RIIIPL-East). But to try to paper over what is occurring at the "whole club" level would seem to me to be living in a state of denial.

Rather than ignore what is going on, perhaps a discussion of why it is going on would be more healthy -- and in the end, more constructive.

Gamecock... The point is that CUFC fielded a variety (18) teams in the challenge league with the idea of competing at a high level (see Coach P's discussions). Point is that CUFC's B teams cannot perform as well as CESA or Bridge's B teams
The list below taken from 04 striker with additional comments only looks at the top CUFC team in the division. If you want development then someone better be looking at the u13 and U14, it just isn't happening.

Challenge Girls
U13 CUFC elite 5 of 5 (last) CRSA - first
U14 CUFC Elite 3 of 9 with a U13 CESA team in first
U15 5 of 6 - (represents challenge team as Elite is playing Premier)
U16 6 of 6 - (represents challenge team as Elite is playing Premier)
U17 2 of 7 - Good Team
U18 5 of 7 - (represents challenge team as Elite is playing Premier)

Challenge Boys
U13 4 of 7 (this group does not include the Bridge or CESA teams playing up in U14)
U14 2 of 10 lots of ties including young Bridge team
U15 6 of 6 - (represents challenge team as Elite is playing Premier)
U16 4 of 8 - Behind CESA B and Bridge B teams.
U17 1 of 7 - Good team
U18 2 of 8 - Good Team

As far as your statement regarding college coaches... Bollocks!!!... college coaches will go to the teams that have the talent...period. The only thing a club gives you is the capability to be put in front of the coach because of previous performances. With your logic noone will see anybody from CUFC because it did not exist last year. And lets not forget how much promotion the club is doing for the players it has. I know first hand that CESA/Bridge/CRSA and even LCSC do promotions of their players. I have yet to see one from CUFC. CSC did some work, NECSA not much. Heck last year a NECSA player got more mileage guest playing for another team at CASL than the whole state championship season at U18.

Let's not delude ourselves with two things: (1) The senseless pursuit of impartiality (no such thing), and (2) the misconception that numbers are somehow "impartial."

Now, data in the form of numbers are rich and valuable, but that type of data is made more rich and more revealing if it comes in a variety of analyses and if you have other forms of data—such as WORDS. In all respects, however, data of the kind we are tossing about are simply DESCRIPTIVE. And from that description we must draw conclusions.

And that is what we are doing here. Chico's time is well spent and valuable. I wish we had more data, and a variety of data for that matter. Chico is making a huge contribution to the consideration with the data.

As a researcher myself, I would say that all this data tends to provoke QUESTIONS, and that is the best thing that comes from data. My two (2) cents.

Amen